无人车“闯祸”,谁来负责?——基于法经济学视角的分析

Who Should be Responsible in Autonomous Vehicle Accidents?——Analysis Based on the Perspective of Law and Economics

无人驾驶汽车技术被我国列为重点发展对象,同时也是国外众多企业的竞争热点。关于无人车上路后发生交通事故带来的侵权行为应当按何原则进行归责,目前我国法律还未给出正式规定。虽然已有部分国外政府颁布了一些无人车侵权行为归责的法律,但是学术界对此问题依然持不同意见。本文将力图在不与国内现有法律体系相违背的前提下分析无人车侵权行为的归责原则,并尝试从法经济学视角寻求理论支持。我们在无人车技术分级基础上,分三个步骤讨论了不同级别无人车事故的责任划分。其中利用预防函数模型和汉德公式重点分析了错误干预和错过干预两种情形,结果表明:第一,错误干预情形下,无论是无人车(系统)还是人类驾驶员,进行错误干预的一方承担事故责任;第二,错过干预情形下,预防成本小于预期成本的一方承担事故责任,无人车(系统)有明显缺陷除外。

Autonomous vehicle technology has been listed as a key development target in China,and it is also a competitive hotspot for many foreign companies.However,what kind of law should be adopted to divide the tort liability when traffic accidents caused by automous vehicle occured?At present,the Chinese law has not yet given formal regulations.Although some foreign governments have enacted laws on the tort of autonomous vehicle accidents,the academic community still holds different opinions on this issue.This article will attempt to analyze the divisional principles of the liability for tort of autonomous vehicles without violating existing laws and try to seek theoretical support from the perspective of law and economics.Based on the technical levels of automation,the article discusses the division of responsibilities for different levels of autonomous vehicle accidents in three steps.Then we use the prevention function model and the Hande formula to analyze the two situations of false intervention and missed intervention.The results show that:Firstly,in the case of false intervention,whether it is an autonomous vehicle(system)or a human driver,the party who made the false intervention bears the responsibility for the accident;Secondly,in the case of missed intervention,the party that whose prevention cost less than the expected cost bears the responsibility for the accident,except for the obvious defects of the autonomous vehicle(system).